Franca Parianen: Cooperating as a society

BRIGITTE:Doing things together puts us in a good mood and gives us energy, whether we sing in a choir, play in a volleyball team or express our opinions at a demonstration with like-minded people. What is actually happening here?

FRANCA PARIANEN: When we do activities together, our thinking and our actions run parallel, we wander less and get more into a flow. Contact with others is one of the most complex intellectual achievements of which we are capable: we ask ourselves what the other person is thinking and interpret their facial expressions. Norepinephrine dilates our pupils when we communicate with others, making us more attentive and awake. For example, when people dance together, they produce endorphins that boost mood and increase the pain threshold. This means that we even tolerate it if someone steps on our toes because the joy of doing something together outweighs it. To put it bluntly, one could even say: Only through the ability to cooperate have we been able to survive as a human race.

Steep thesis, how did you come up with that?

We’re not particularly strong, we’re not particularly insulated from heat, we don’t even have claws. And then our brain, with its pronounced front area, the prefrontal cortex, also consumes an incredible number of calories. Not the best conditions for a mammal. And yet evolution hasn’t sorted us out – why?

You believe: Because we are strong as a group?

Our brain is specialized in organizing collaboration. Probably millions of years ago, before we settled down and learned to farm or make clothing from fur. This can be observed in the laboratory by comparing the behavior of young monkeys with that of small children. Because it is assumed that they show basic human characteristics in a relatively unadulterated manner. Can they figure out how to pry open a box together? How to pull an object out of an opening, for example using a stick?

And?

We take a lot of pride in the fact that we as humanity have learned to use tools – but our biological relatives are ahead almost everywhere; the little orangs, for example, are much more dexterous. There is only one thing that children can definitely do better: to support one another.

Our animal cousins ​​can’t do it?

Chimpanzees also cognitively understand that they have to pull together to tip over a heavy basket of fruit – but in the end, the highest ranking person eats everything alone. Small children get on the funnel by themselves: If I don’t accommodate the other person, they will refuse to support me next time. And in the end, trust pays off more than distrust.

So aren’t we the heartless egoists we might be thought to be?

Social doesn’t necessarily mean nice! We don’t have to have positive feelings for each other all the time, we simply depend on each other, we can’t raise ourselves, we can’t survive alone on a desert island.

Actually good conditions for getting even big challenges under control together – keyword climate catastrophe.

Actually yes, but there are two problems. On the one hand, the size: cooperation works best in close proximity, in groups of up to around 150 members. Not worldwide. On the other hand, we know from social science: What small children do intuitively well, adults forget when they think too strategically. For example, thinking about how to gain an advantage at the expense of others, or fearing that the other side will betray you. The tendency towards mistrust can be seen in simulation games in the laboratory as well as in politics, in arguments such as: If we promote renewable energies, we are the stupid ones and other countries will enrich themselves at our expense! Firstly, that’s not true, secondly, in the end we can only win or lose together.

Gaining advantages at the expense of others is never not wise?

Neither in politics nor in life. Interestingly, however, a contrast is often made between social and intelligent, as if the ability to relate and brains were mutually exclusive. For example, when the masterminds in series are so often the biggest, sorry, assholes – Sherlock Holmes, Dr. House. Conversely, it turns into a shoe: Matching brain areas are involved when we solve math problems and when we interact socially. The bonding hormone oxytocin, which we produce when we come into contact with others, often gives us the calm to think rationally. If I’m aggressive and short-tempered, I don’t have that.

And at the same time, trust is not necessarily a romantic quality, but also a cool necessity: giving someone a leap of faith can be just as sensible as investing money – in the reasonable hope that it will then multiply.

Another cliché next to nerdy superbrains: women are the more social, the more cooperative gender. Is there something to that?

Nope. Think of two fields of flower varieties growing into each other in the middle: there are differences at the edges, but also a large, common area between the sexes. In terms of the tendency, however, one can say: Men think more in terms of “us against them”, for example when the fans of opposing football teams beat each other up, while women are a little more planned in their cooperation. But when groups of men and women are asked to solve a common task, they often come to the same conclusion, just in different ways.

How exactly?

In an all-male group, everyone often rallies behind a leader; women tend to negotiate more equally, and both work. However, one thing can be said: women often have better social networks overall, which makes them more resilient. For married men, the risk of mortality is 250 percent lower than for unmarried men – for women the difference is only 50 percent. Because in addition to a romantic relationship, they often have other important relationships that they can rely on. In this sense, female friendships are literally life-saving.

Bridget